Support NeoGAF

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

your lack of empathy is shocking. 'but i have it bad too' is a really awful way of showing empathy. this discrimination that we are talking about exists. to play the 'but i have it bad too' card is doing what? achieving what?

does it stop discrimination in fiction existing? does it change or fix anything? if you've been discriminated against, why wouldn't you say instead 'yeah, i know what that feels like, let me stand alongside you,'?

Did you jump to the conclusion that I didn't have empathy because I'm white? Because I certainly never posted anything saying that I had none or thought racism or sexism was justified.

I'm not even saying my own experience cheapens theirs, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm just pointing out that you're falling into the very trap you're trying to say I did. You are the one who said privileged white males deserve to feel discrimination, not me. All I pointed out was that I had. My approach would be to make it so that no one ever has to, instead of some insipid comment about teaching others "what it feels like."

 

[faceless007]

You are the one who said privileged white males deserve to feel discrimination, not me.

I don't know why those who take umbrage at the very concept of "privilege" always assume this is what people are saying even though it isn't.

 

[notworksafe]

I don't know why those who take umbrage at the very concept of "privilege" always assume this is what people are saying even though it isn't.

But he did say that...

i wish every 'white priviledged straight male' could experience what it's like to be 'othered' because then shit like this wouldn't fly.

 

[faceless007]

There's a difference between saying somebody "deserves" something and saying somebody should experience something so they grow some empathy. One is a normative statement, the other isn't.

 

[Emitan]

There's a difference between saying somebody "deserves" something and saying somebody should experience something so they grow some empathy. One is a normative statement, the other isn't.

Clarifying a statement? Typical oppressor tactic.

 

[plagiarize]

There's a difference between saying somebody "deserves" something and saying somebody should experience something so they grow some empathy. One is a normative statement, the other isn't.

thank you. and should i remind everyone that i am wishing what happened to me would happen to people that it hasn't, because i think it has helped make me more understanding and empathetic.

i can only imagine that someone saw the words 'priveledged white straight male' and instantly inserted a hateful tone into my entire post, when the actual words that i wrote i still stand by as clearly suggesting something else.

 

[stupei]

But he did say that...

That's not really the same thing.

He said that he thinks experiencing what it's like to live like someone else would increase empathy, not that straight white males deserve to face constant discrimination as punishment for some kind of sin -- as seems to be the implication from statements like "being told we're all shit." Nobody said anybody was shit. He said that if you haven't experienced something, you're less likely to full understand it. That's honestly not something I'd expect a lot of people to be able to argue with, but add in certain key words and suddenly a simple, logical statement becomes fairly loaded in some people's minds.

You're right, he's saying they should experience something negative even though they don't "deserve" it. Because you can "deserve" discrimination.

Cool. Where'd you pull that one from?

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

There's a difference between saying somebody "deserves" something and saying somebody should experience something so they grow some empathy. One is a normative statement, the other isn't.

You're right, he's saying they should experience something negative even though they don't "deserve" it. Because you can "deserve" discrimination.

 

[GrandHarrier]

thank you. and should i remind everyone that i am wishing what happened to me would happen to people that it hasn't, because i think it has helped make me more understanding and empathetic?

And wishing that is wrong. You should never want people to go through negative experiences that you've gone through. Ever. A world where no one has to deal with that is what we are building towards, not a world where everyone has experienced pain and suffering.

 

[plagiarize]

And wishing that is wrong. You should never want people to go through negative experiences that you've gone through. Ever. A world where no one has to deal with that is what we are building towards, not a world where everyone has experienced pain and suffering.

a world without pain and suffering is impossible, which is why we strive for a world with the least amount of pain and suffering. if letting one of the groups that often unintentionally causes other groups much greater pain and suffering experience a small taste of that pain and suffering reduces the pain and suffering felt by everyone, then maybe that's not such a bad thing to want to see happen.

if i had an experience that didn't leave me damaged in any way, which i genuinely believe made me a better person, why is it wrong of me to hope other people experience the same thing?

if we don't understand what pain is, how can we understand how bad it is if and when we inflict it on others?

getting immunised isn't a fun experience. there is a little bit of pain, and it can make you a little bit sick. should i not wish people get immunised?

 

[GrandHarrier]

a world without pain and suffering is impossible, which is why we strive for a world with the least amount of pain and suffering. if letting one of the groups that often unintentionally causes other groups much greater pain and suffering experience a small taste of that pain and suffering reduces the pain and suffering felt by everyone, then maybe that's not such a bad thing to want to see happen.

if i had an experience that didn't leave me damaged in any way, which i genuinely believe made me a better person, why is it wrong of me to hope other people experience the same thing?

if we don't understand what pain is, how can we understand how bad it is if and when we inflict it on others?

Yeah? And who are you to demand that others experience something like that? And where do you draw the line? Who is the arbiter of what should be "experienced?" What doesn't damage you might ruin somebody else. The first time somebody was "damaged" by your desire to see people suffer what you've suffer, what then?

The answer of course is no one has that right. No one can draw that line. No one can be the arbiter.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Yeah? And who are you to demand that others experience something like that?

Plagiarize isn't demanding anything. As far as I can tell he's only saying "experiencing this really opened my eyes, I think it'd end up being good for the world if others did as well.".


I think you're making it out to sound a lot more negative than what he's saying at a basic level.

 

[Dylan]

Re: everyone who jumped down my throat on the last page. I have posted many points earlier in this very thread but I understand that it isn't exactly convenient to sift through it.

So here goes:

Some of us really need to consider the difference between hating on this particular kickstarter, and being an advocate of sexism in general. For example, I'm not an advocate of lung cancer, but I would probably be against the idea of donating to a kickstarter that funded a discussion of the prevalence of cigarette imagery in Metal Gear Solid.


I think a lot of people have the idea in their head that giving money to support this kickstarter is somehow tantamount to giving money to rid the world of sexism. It isn't. It also doesn't fund ridding video games of sexist imagery.

The reason being, the conclusions that will be derived from discussion are obvious. No rational person thinks that the current portrayal of women in the average action game is an accurate reflection of society. So what will Anita Sarkeesian's eye-opening discussion uncover about video games that we don't already know? Should we also kickstart some in-depth analysis on the prevalence of violence in games? Perhaps we should also fund a radio series on the accuracy of mushroom use in Super Mario Bros.

Perhaps we could also generate a discussion about the roles of males in popular erotica? (Bitch media, the institution behind the Tropes vs Women's series, has lots of suggestions on where to start. )

If people want to fund this thing purely for it's entertainment value, that's fine; more power to them. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that a played analysis of obvious issues will have any part in changing the games industry, one whose entire business model revolves around marketing to teenage boys.

The "problem" as it exists will simply go away as the industry matures, as the core player base matures, and as the tech matures to the point where we can have games that deal with more realistic and issues more complicated than "shoot terrorists for achievements". I think we can all agree that we are already starting to see many games like this, that they do indeed sell, and that they will likely be more common in the future. Granted, stupid games with offensive characters will still exist, just like they still do in all other forms of media. But people are free to create whatever fiction they want, and I'm fine with that too.

How could this Kickstarter be tweaked to win my support? Why not instead seek to design a real game that is fun, mature, and that uses the characterization of women in a manner that sets an excellent example for the rest of the industry? This I would love to see.

 

[plagiarize]

Yeah? And who are you to demand that others experience something like that? And where do you draw the line? Who is the arbiter of what should be "experienced?" What doesn't damage you might ruin somebody else. The first time somebody was "damaged" by your desire to see people suffer what you've suffer, what then?

The answer of course is no one has that right. No one can draw that line. No one can be the arbiter.

so whenever you see the word 'wish' you read 'demand'?

and look at this... if the goal was to completely change the topic from being about the way women are portrayed in gaming, you've achieved complete success.

seat belts kill some people in car accidents, so i suppose the fact that they do more good than harm is irrelevant. i suppose its immoral for anyone to support seatbelt laws in your eyes. i might be wrong to think that there'd be less 'othering' if everyone knew how it felt to be othered, but the fact remains that many people are othered extremely and regularly. if everyone being a little bit othered prevented that, would that not be preferrable?

here in the real world discrimination is not something we can irradicate completely. you have to be realistic about such things, and 'no pain for anyone' and 'no suffering for anyone' are the sort of standards that can never be met. you can shoot down all sorts of things which are forces of social good by finding the individuals that those things would harm.

but 'it can't ever be completely fixed' is also no reason not to do every single thing possible to try and improve it. people are suffering greatly, and if 'spread the burden' sounds horrible to you, i don't really know what to say.

i am not asking for people to suffer constant regular discrimination, just for everyone to have tasted what it's like to be on the receiving end of it. because i genuinely think people are generally good, and i genuinely think a lot of the bad people do is because they don't understand that they are doing bad.

maybe that's MY naivety, to think that if we all knew how it felt that there'd be a lot less of it going around, but that is how i feel.

fiction continues to be woefully lacking in its representations of the gender which makes up half the planet, and that's not excusable... and yet every time its brought up, the first goddamn response is 'but male characters are sex objects too' as if its exactly the same.

i don't think that's a position of spite, or hate, or meanness, but one of genuine ignorance. heaven forbid i wish for something i think might help which is drawn completely from my own experiences. i must want every white priveledge straight guy to come under constant discrimination... no, i must DEMAND it.

whatever.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

How could this Kickstarter be tweaked to win my support? Why not instead seek to design a real game that is fun, mature, and that uses the characterization of women in a manner that sets an excellent example for the rest of the industry? This I would love to see.

Because she's not a game designer presumably? Furthermore, she asked for $6,000. Even at that $84k sum, that's not a ton of money to throw at making a game with such grand aspirations.

 

[Metrotab]

My question is: how will she use the 100k exactly? That's a lot of money for researching tropes and making YouTube videos about them, something she already did before this Kickstarter. I also wonder if the videos are gonna be more substantial than the respective TV Tropes page. What insights will she add, how deep will her analysis go?

 

[DragonGirl]

It wasn't an argument, it was just an image sitting in my head as I quietly wept for humanity.

Blame the assholes who attacked her for daring to want to talk about the issue. The only reason her kickstarter overflowed like that is because the misogynist haters seriously pissed off people. The best way to fight against the hate was to donate. She'll likely use the money to fund quite a few future projects so hey, I'm good with that.

 

[Dylan]

Because she's not a game designer presumably? Furthermore, she asked for $6,000. Even at that $84k sum, that's not a ton of money to throw at making a game with such grand aspirations.

I don't know if grand aspirations necessarily equate to cost. Ms. Pac-man achieved gender equality for reasonably cheap.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I don't know if grand aspirations necessarily equate to cost. Ms. Pac-man achieved gender equality for reasonably cheap.

Well, one, I'm not entirely in agreement that Ms. Pac-Man addressed any gender inequality. And two, games were slightly cheaper to design back in 1982.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't know if grand aspirations necessarily equate to cost. Ms. Pac-man achieved gender equality for reasonably cheap.

... really? because gender equality is a bow and lipstick?

 

[Emitan]

I don't know if grand aspirations necessarily equate to cost. Ms. Pac-man achieved gender equality for reasonably cheap.

You're not even an entertaining joke character

 

[faceless007]

...seriously? Well for one thing Ms. Pac-Man was a carbon copy of an already existing game (programming, design, sound already in place) they basically just changed a few sprites.

So if you're suggesting that an easy way to achieve gender quality is to take things already male-centered and replace the sprites with females, I'd say you really don't understand these issues in the slightest.

 

[Dylan]

... really? because gender equality is a bow and lipstick?

Ms Pac-Man was much harder than regular Pac-Man, unequivocally showing how through sheer hard work and determination, females can accomplish as much, if not more than their male counterparts.

Although if all you see is just a bow and lipstick, I won't comment on what that means for your own perception of women.

: )

 

[John Rabbit]

i was on board with this endeavor until i read the kickstarter page and didn't see any plans for what she'll do with the additional money aside from "improving production value".

it's important work.

it's not $100,000+ to play a bunch of games and then dissect them important.

 

[plagiarize]

Ms Pac-Man was much harder than regular Pac-Man, unequivocally showing how through sheer hard work and determination, females can accomplish as much, if not more than their male counterparts.

Although if all you see is just a bow and lipstick, I won't comment on what that means for your own perception of women.

: )

*boggle*.

 

[Nert]

"Mrs. Male Character" is one of the tropes that she's going to examine in these videos

 

[plagiarize]

Ms Pac-Man was much harder than regular Pac-Man, unequivocally showing how through sheer hard work and determination, females can accomplish as much, if not more than their male counterparts.

Although if all you see is just a bow and lipstick, I won't comment on what that means for your own perception of women.

: )

i'm pretty sure where the intermissions in Pac-Man showed him chasing or being chased by ghosts, the intermissions in Ms Pac-Man show her settling down with Pac-Man and having his baby.

 

[Dylan]

i'm pretty sure where the intermissions in Pac-Man showed him chasing or being chased by ghosts, the intermissions in Ms Pac-Man show her settling down with Pac-Man and having his baby.

So I guess we have proven that fiction can be interpreted in just about any way, by anyone, and thus people should probably be free to their own creativity (even if it sucks).

 

[plagiarize]

So I guess we have proven that fiction can be interpreted in just about any way, by anyone, and thus people should probably be free to their own creativity (even if it sucks).

i don't know about anyone else, but i'm trying to help creators of fiction create better fiction. i'm trying to encourage a wider variety of story types. the better we understand all types of people, the better our stories become.

i want writers to have a better understanding of what they are writing about. nobody loses anything if things move in that direction.

 

[faceless007]

Edit: never mind

 

[Steve Youngblood]

So I guess we have proven that fiction can be interpreted in just about any way, by anyone, and thus people should probably be free to their own creativity (even if it sucks).

The fact that you can facetiously draw disingenuous conclusions about authorial intent doesn't really prove anything. I mean, you can suggest that Ms. Pac-Man was clearly intended to break down gender barriers, but everyone else can rightly call bull shit on it.

 

[Devolution]

So I guess we have proven that fiction can be interpreted in just about any way, by anyone, and thus people should probably be free to their own creativity (even if it sucks).

Or you could just stop the silencing tactics.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Although if all you see is just a bow and lipstick, I won't comment on what that means for your own perception of women.

: )

What are you even saying here?

 

[Dylan]

The fact that you can facetiously draw disingenuous conclusions about authorial intent doesn't really prove anything. I mean, you can suggest that Ms. Pac-Man was clearly intended to break down gender barriers, but everyone else can rightly call bull shit on it.

My initial point was that a game doesn't have to have the budget of Gears of War to be significant or successful. The fact that people took my ms. pac-man example literally was funny enough for me to keep rolling with it.

 

[plagiarize]

My initial point was that a game doesn't have to have the budget of Gears of War to be significant or successful. The fact that people took my ms. pac-man example literally was funny enough for me to keep rolling with it.

'it was just a joke!'

are you trying to collect these? http://www.derailingfordummies.com/complete.html

 

[Steve Youngblood]

My initial point was that a game doesn't have to have the budget of Gears of War to be significant or successful. The fact that people took my ms. pac-man example literally was funny enough for me to keep rolling with it.

No, but it probably needs more than one woman with $84k that isn't already a games developer/designer.

 

[GamerSoul]

I don't like the phrase "make games that cater to women." A poster earlier brought up a good point about "pink ghettos." The games don't need to appeal to what they think women want. I like adventure games, I like shoot 'em ups, I like RPGS. I'm not asking for a game specifically catered to my gender, I'm asking for better female representation and less tropes. They are not the same thing. The idea that better written women leads/secondary characters and less sexualization is "catering to women" is the problem in a nutshell. That it's only us who want or enjoy it.

Other than this post, how else can they effectively attempt to balance the many characteristics of women in games while not trying to cater to a certain group. And are there good examples?

 

[Dylan]

What are you even saying here?

It was simply a humorous and fairly obvious reminder that we should judge women by their behaviour and not on their appearance.

 

[plagiarize]

Other than this post, how else can they effectively attempt to balance the many characteristics of women in games while not trying to cater to a certain group. And are there good examples?

write women realistically and don't just use the same two or three basic tropes. that's my advice. getting more women involved in writing your game would help too. TV shows that don't specifically cater to women, which have women in the writing room, tend to offer much more realistic and balanced takes on the gender than ones that don't have women involved in the writing.

ignore if you can the audience, isn't fiction that paints women very narrowly just poorly written?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

It was simply a humorous and fairly obvious reminder that we should judge women by their behaviour and not on their appearance.

I might be stupid, but I don't recall the pacman games having anything but appearance to go by.




Also, Gamersoul, what is your avatar from btw?

Other than this post, how else can they effectively attempt to balance the many characteristics of women in games while not trying to cater to a certain group. And are there good examples?

Staying away from gendered tropes is probably a good thing. I do think "just writing a dude, but make it female" doesn't work, as it can end up being weird. But keeping things like practicality and self-dignity in mind
comes a long way in designing characters.


When I think of my own female designs/characters I try to make their appearance alone a significant factor in making them not just feel like especially sexy/overtly female pin-up dolls and fanservice machines.
Though I'm not sure if I'm unwillingly still sticking to bad tropes, that's always hard to figure out.

 

[AppleMIX]

Good examples, but you also bring up another one of my issues

Why is what she's wearing determines whether she's a good female character or not??!

Mass Effect is a perfect example. I remember people complaining about how females where dressed, ignoring the fact that female characters in this series wield ALOT of power and are very influential to the story.

Them wearing tight clothing, lookin sexy ect... shouldn't take away from the role they play in the game, same goes for being sexual.

This reminds me of a conversation I had earlier about Chell (from Portal 2).

Someone was arguing Chell was sexualized because she was wearing a tank top in Portal 2.

 

[turlockobserver]

Since when is it wrong to treat characters in fiction as symbols? There's nothing inherently wrong with archetypes in fiction, is there? Maybe I'm just more interested in the art than the sociology.

 

[Orayn]

Since when is it wrong to treat characters in fiction as symbols? There's nothing inherently wrong with archetypes in fiction, is there? Maybe I'm just more interested in the art than the sociology.

The thrust of this video series' argument isn't that it's bad for archetypes to exist among female characters in games, but that many of the most popular archetypes are obnoxious, sexist cliches.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Since when is it wrong to treat characters in fiction as symbols? There's nothing inherently wrong with archetypes in fiction, is there? Maybe I'm just more interested in the art than the sociology.

There's nothing inherently wrong, but there is a lot more virtue in being realistic and nuanced imo.

 

[Kintaro]

This reminds me of a conversation I had earlier about Chell (from Portal 2).

Someone was arguing Chell was sexualized because she was wearing a tank top in Portal 2.

There's no arguing with those people. Just nod and back away.

 

[Nert]

Since when is it wrong to treat characters in fiction as symbols? There's nothing inherently wrong with archetypes in fiction, is there? Maybe I'm just more interested in the art than the sociology.

Well, other than the broader negative effects that sexist tropes have on society (she's not trying to condemn archetypes like the hero's journey or something), they can also just be boring, cliched, or simply not engaging. Everything else being equal, not leaning on tired stereotypes and favoring better developed characters should make for a better experience.

In other words, I tend to derive more entertainment from, and find more artistic merit in, games with characters like GLaDOS than I do from games with characters along the lines of "sexy ladies killing zombies while wearing skimpy outfits."

Edit: Just in case it gets taken this way, because these comments always seem to eventually, I'm not saying that I want to ban the skimpy zombie killing things or suppress freedom of expression. That sort of thing just shouldn't be the norm; there are many, many more stories to tell out there.

 

[Scrabble]

There's nothing inherently wrong, but there is a lot more virtue in being realistic and nuanced imo.

Sure but it has it's own advantages as well. Indiana Jones and Nathan Drake are mostly archetypes with little depth, but allow us to feel as though were those characters. What makes the characters great is the fantasy of going on adventures, battling evil, getting the girl etc and not the character themselves.

 

[Akainu]

This reminds me of a conversation I had earlier about Chell (from Portal 2).

Someone was arguing Chell was sexualized because she was wearing a tank top in Portal 2.

It wasn't the boots that are designed like high heels?

 

[plagiarize]

Well, other than the broader negative effects that sexist tropes have on society, they can also just be boring, cliched, or simply not engaging. Everything else being equal, not leaning on tired stereotypes and favoring better developed characters should make for a better experience.

In other words, I derive more entertainment from (and find more artistic merit in) games with characters like GLaDOS than I do from games with characters along the lines of "sexy ladies killing zombies while wearing skimpy outfits."

i do wish everyone in this thread would play Lollipop Chainsaw, because while it's absolutely guilty of some of the stuff we're bitching about being the norm (not bitching about it existing though!) it does some other stuff that's very uncommon and at times even seems to have something to say about the topic.

i sense some people would be highly offended and others overly defensive of it. you could write a thesis on just that one game alone.

that said, i think it's overuse of a given trope that's harmful. there's nothing wrong with the occasional sex object or sexy ass kicker, what's harmful is when that's all you present and people start thinking that's the norm.

it's also boring if that's all you run into.

Juliet's characterisation in Lollipop Chainsaw is pretty standard, but it's the characterisation of everything else that makes it interesting. I can't think of many games where the monogamist female lead is openly insulted by being called a slut and a whore (as many attractive women are insulted), and i can't think of any character more emasculated than her boyfriend Nick, who is teenage girl dream non threatening boyfriend material even before he gets his body cut off and gets turned into an accessory.

it's utterly fascinating.

 

[jimi_dini]

Good examples, but you also bring up another one of my issues

Why is what she's wearing determines whether she's a good female character or not??!

Because it's typical video game writing/design.
Let me put it this way:

This is an evil person in one of the most popular videogame franchise.

These are the enemies of another very popular videogame franchise.

And another evil mastermind from another very popular videogame franchise.

Someone was arguing Chell was sexualized because she was wearing a tank top in Portal 2.

How is THIS sexualized? I mean seriously. She's dressed like a woman doing sports, which is totally appropriate for the game. And normally you don't even see her in the game at all. I mean how is she supposed to dress?